Obama, House Panel Spar Over Highway Plan

This story appears in the June 22 print edition of Transport Topics.

WASHINGTON — Setting up what could be a major confrontation between Congress and the White House over transportation policy, a key House committee unveiled a $500 billion blueprint to remake the U.S. transport system, while on the same day the administration instead proposed extending the current plan for 18 months.

At virtually the same time the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was briefing reporters on its plan — three years in the making — to reshape how the country funds all its transportation programs, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asked Congress to put off substantive debate on transportation policy by continuing the existing funding scheme until 2011.

The current transportation funding program is scheduled to expire at the end of September, and Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), committee chairman, has long promised speedy consideration of a replacement.

After the White House move, Oberstar said he will proceed with his panel’s bill; committee markup of the plan could begin as early as June 24.

“We don’t have time for 18 months,” Oberstar said. “That puts a Damocles’ sword of uncertainty over transportation. It’s unacceptable.”

Oberstar joined in a June 18 press conference with Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the senior Republican on the committee.

“Don’t underestimate Oberstar and Mica,” Mica said. “We’re going to do everything in our power, regardless of what the administration said yesterday.”

Oberstar’s chief committee spokesman, Jim Berard, said the transportation plan “has widespread support among the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee.”

LaHood delivered the administration’s message seeking to delay the highway bill to House leaders June 17 in a visit to Capitol Hill. He also asked Congress to replenish the nearly depleted Highway Trust Fund.

In a formal statement, LaHood acknowledged that the Obama administration’s proposal could be a source of friction. “I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach,” he said.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has said the trust fund will run out of cash before Sept. 30, when the current transportation authorization law expires, derailing countless projects in the states unless $5 billion to $7 billion can restore the fund.

It was unclear whether the Oberstar committee’s plan, even if it passed the House, would get a hearing in the Senate. Within hours of LaHood’s visit, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she backed the administration’s position.

Boxer’s committee has jurisdiction over transportation reauthorization in the Senate.

“The White House proposal to replenish the Trust Fund until 2011 will keep the recovery and job creation moving forward and give us the necessary time to pass a more comprehensive multi-year transportation authorization bill with stable and reliable funding sources,” Boxer said.

Berard, Oberstar’s spokesman, said he did not believe that Boxer’s statement meant she would refuse to consider a reauthorization bill this year.

At issue are two funding questions: how to make up funding gap for this year and how to fund the nation’s transportation system over the long term.

Short term, in addition to the fiscal shortfall this year of $5 billion to $7 billion in the Highway Trust Fund, DOT spokeswoman Sasha Johnson said that the fund needs $8 billion to $10 billion in the 2010 fiscal year to make up for a projected shortfall in fuel-tax revenues, which will produce only $36.6 billion of about $46 billion that will be needed.

DOT’s Johnson said that the stopgap funding would come from general federal funds, largely generated by income taxes, but that details are still being worked out about funding for the Obama administration’s suggested 18-month extension.

Long term, the Oberstar panel’s plan would add more than $25 billion a year to current transportation spending, but he said his bill would not recommend funding mechanisms, leaving that process instead to the House Ways and Means Committee.

As a result, the proposed bill addresses neither of the two most talked about funding options: higher fuel taxes or a new vehicle-miles-traveled tax.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore), chairman of the panel’s highways and transit subcommittee, would not say whether he preferred fuel taxes or a VMT tax.

“We’re [pulling] nothing off the table at this point,” said DeFazio, who joined Oberstar at the press briefing.

Congress cannot ask the public to pay increased taxes for a system that is not “delivering,” said Oberstar, who was highly critical of the current transportation system.

The Obama administration has said it opposes increasing fuel taxes, at least during a recession.

In his statement last week, LaHood said, “With the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation.”

Staff Reporter Eric Miller contributed to this story.